The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reassessment of the Diagnostic Value of Histology in Patients with GERD, Using Multiple Biopsy Sites and an Appropriate Control Group
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Histology is generally considered as a tool of limited value in the diagnosis of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). AIM: To reevaluate the diagnostic role of histological alterations in GERD, using multiple biopsy sites and an appropriate control group. METHODS: We studied 135 patients with typical and atypical symptoms of GERD. They underwent upper GI endoscopy and Los Angeles classification was used for grading cases with mucosal breaks. Biopsies were taken at the Z-line, 2 and 4 cm above it. Microscopic esophagitis was identified by necrosis/erosion, neutrophil/eosinophil intraepithelial infiltration, basal cell hyperplasia, elongation of papillae, dilation of intercellular spaces and a score (range: 0-2) was given for each lesion. Twenty-four-hour esophageal pH monitoring was performed in each patient. Twenty subjects without reflux symptoms, and with normal endoscopy and pH testing were considered as controls. RESULTS: Histological alterations were found in 100 of 119 GERD patients (84%) and in 3 of 20 controls (15%) with a significant difference (p < 0.00001). Histology was abnormal in 96% of patients with erosive esophagitis and in 76% of patients with nonerosive reflux disease (NERD). The sum of scores of microscopic lesions found in all biopsy sites ranged from 0 to 22 and we identified a cut-off value (score 2) that distinguished efficiently controls from GERD patients. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast with previous reports on the marginal role of histology in patients with GERD, our study shows that this technique can be a useful diagnostic tool, particularly in patients with NERD, when biopsies are taken at two sites including Z-line and 2 cm above it.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon Consensus
Gyawali, C. P., Kahrilas, P. J., Savarino, E., Zerbib, F., Mion, F., Smout, A. J. P. M., Vaezi, M., Sifrim, D., Fox, M. R., Vela, M. F., et al. (2018) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314722 · Cited by 1,457
Self-citationYang, L., Lu, X., Nossa, C. W., Francois, F., Peek, R. M., & Pei, Z. (2009) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2009.04.046 · Cited by 490
Souza, R. F., Huo, X., Mittal, V., Schuler, C. M., Carmack, S. W., Zhang, H. Y., Zhang, X., Yu, C., Hormi–Carver, K., Genta, R. M., et al. (2009) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2009.07.055 · Cited by 406
Savarino, E., Zentilin, P., Mastracci, L., Dulbecco, P., Marabotto, E., Gemignani, L., Bruzzone, L., de Bortoli, N., Frigo, A. C., Fiocca, R., et al. (2013) · Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1007/s00535-012-0672-2 · Cited by 181
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Zentilin, P., Savarino, V., Mastracci, L., Spaggiari, P., Dulbecco, P., Ceppa, P., Savarino, E., Parodi, A., Mansi, C., & Fiocca, R.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Gastroenterology
- Published
- 2005-10
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2299-2306
- ISSN
- 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
- 1572-0241
- OpenAlex
- W2023670929
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reassessment of the Diagnostic Value of Histology in Patients with GERD, Using Multiple Biopsy Sites and an Appropriate Control Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.50209.x
- The paper
- Zentilin, P., Savarino, V., Mastracci, L., Spaggiari, P., Dulbecco, P., Ceppa, P., Savarino, E., Parodi, A., Mansi, C., & Fiocca, R. (2005). Reassessment of the Diagnostic Value of Histology in Patients with GERD, Using Multiple Biopsy Sites and an Appropriate Control Group. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.50209.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.